JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate holding for Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri P.K. Joshi, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri S.R. Palnitkar, learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 4.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioners herein original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 322 of 1999 had borrowed a loan of Rs. 6,80,000/- from the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and executed a mortgage deed for Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The main relief in the suit is declaration to the effect that the mortgage deed is bad in law and, therefore, is not binding on the plaintiffs. The petitioners have paid Court fees of Rs. 460/- only.

4. The respondents herein raised objection with regard to payment of Court fees. According to the respondents, the dues payable to them comes to Rs. 15,44,131/-. The respondents issued a notice under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to the present petitioners. In order to avoid payment claimed in the notice, the plaintiffs filed the suit. According to the respondents, the petitioners should have valued the suit at Rs. 15,44,131/- and should have paid the Court fees on the amount claimed in the notice issued under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951.

5. It appears that the learned trial Judge completely swayed away by the objections raised on behalf of the respondents and directed the petitioners (original plaintiffs) to value the suit at Rs. 15,44,131/- and to pay the Court fees thereon within 15 days from the date of order i.e. 6-12-1999. The correctness of this order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Application.

6. The learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar forcefully submitted that the impugned order under challenge is manifestly incorrect. The petitioners did not at all ask any declaration with regard to notice issued under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Pointing out this factual aspect, the learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar submits that the trial Court should not have directed the petitioners to value the suit at Rs. 15,44,131/- and to pay Court fees thereon.

7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate Shri Joshi for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 supported the impugned order passed by the trial Judge.

8. I thoroughly considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the copy of the plaint, it is clearly seen that the plaintiffs have claimed relief of declaration to the effect that the mortgage deed is bad in law and consequently not binding on them. The learned trial Judge, without taking into consideration the tenor of the suit and the reliefs claimed, accepted the objections raised on behalf of the respondents. The entire approach of the learned trial Judge is wrong. The question with regard to Court fees must be considered always in the light of the allegations made in the plaint. The learned trial Judge has completely gone out of track and directed the plaintiffs to value the suit at Rs. 15,44,131/-. In fact, there was no challenge to the notice issued by the respondents Nos. 1 to 13 under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Under the circumstance, the learned trial Judge should have taken into account the allegations made in the plaint and the reliefs claimed in the suit.

9. A reference with profit can be made to the case of (S. Rm. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar v. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramananthan Cheettiar)1, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 245. The Supreme Court has held that the question of Court fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits.

10. The Single Judge of this Court has also taken a similar kind of view in the case of (Art Commercial Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Bombay v. Vicco Laboratories Bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document